Monday, December 08, 2014

The Environmental Protection-Racket Agency

By

The Environmental Protection Agency consistently justifies its onerous regulations by insisting that they safeguard human health and environmental quality.

From carbon dioxide standards that slash coal industry operations and jobs to Draconian new water rules that let EPA control farm ponds and puddles, the agency claims that benefits to people, plants and wildlife far outweigh any costs.

For EPA's new ground-level ozone standard, however, there is no doubt costs will greatly exceed any asserted benefits. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has said those costs cannot be considered — even though they are enormous, while the benefits are minimal to nonexistent.

It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which U.S. counties met its 2008 ozone standards, which cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion (ppb) to 75 ppb (equivalent to 75 seconds in 32 years).

Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, which many researchers say is below natural ozone levels. Even Jackson Hole and Teton County, Wyoming could be out of compliance, mostly due to emissions from pine trees.

Predictably, EPA says the lower limits are vital for limiting smog, reducing respiratory problems and protecting public health in "at-risk populations." It bases this claim on a 2009 study directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett, who claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.

Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett's work, saying he made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not utilize clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health, and failed to gather critically important information on test subjects' smoking habits. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Yet EPA apparently is basing the new ozone standards solely on Jerrett's analysis. That's typical. The agency usually focuses on one or two studies that support its regulatory agenda, while ignoring those that cast doubt.




No comments: